DHANUA Vs. BALDUA (DECEASED) THOUGH LRS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10-5-1990/7-8- 1990, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 61/35 of 1987-88 Lalitpur, allowing the same and reversing the judgment and decree, dated 12-2-1988, passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 299-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant second appeal are that the plaintiffs, Dhanua etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants, Sillia etc. for declaration of their rights as co-tenure holders alongwith the defendants 1 to 10, inter alia, disclosing the pedigree, pleading that since the land, in dispute was acquired from the common funds of the joint Hindu family, to which they were members and only the names of the defendants 1 to 10 are entered on the same, they are also co-tenure holders along with them. The cause of action arose, when they in May, 1985, came to know of the state of affairs from a perusal of the revenue papers for the very first time and therefore, they prayed for such declaration. On notice, the State contested the suit, denying the allegations. But the defendants 1 to 10 filed their joint written statement, admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared them as co-tenure holders of the land, in dispute, vide its judgment and decree, dated 12-2-1988. Baldua s/o Laxmen want up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and reversed the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court and therefore, it is against this judgment and decree that the instant second appeal has been preferred by Dhanua s/o Halka etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. The following substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal, emerges out from the pleadings of the parties, concerned, firstly, as to whether or not the findings, recorded by the learned lower appellate Court have been arrived at after due and proper appreciation of evidence on record in correct perspective of law and secondly, as to whether or not it was justified in reversing the decision of the learned trial Court. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that it was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs as well as dismissing their suit. The learned Additional Commissioner after due and proper appraisal of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, on record has observed that since the witnesses of the plaintiffs have no knowledge of the state of affairs in respect of the pedigree or the land which was in their cultivatory possession and since it has also not been alleged by them that the name of Laxman was recorded in the revenue papers as KARTA of the family in representative capacity, no reliance can be placed on their testimony and their claim is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He has also analyed the documentary evidence on record through and through in a logical manner and has also further observed that since the plot numbers and their areas also do not tally with that of entered in the old revenue records, it clearly goes to show that the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court are not based upon due and proper appreciation of evidence on record. Since the claim of the plaintiffs was not supported by any positive and cogent evidence, the learned Court of first appeal was perfectly justified in rejecting the same and as such I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and on the evidence on record, I am fully convinced that no error of law or fact has been committed by the learned Additional Commissioner in allowing that first appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and therefore, this second appeal, having no force, very richly deserves dismissed, outright as no substantial question of law is either involved in it.